Internet Users Have Been Defamed by the Anti-Defamation League

I picture an office full of greasy-haired, fashion-obtuse people, furiously tapping away at their keyboards humming "I will survive". All
asthetically-challenged (Ugos) who were particularly hurt at some time in their lives by bullies - maybe in high school or middle school. Now they
have a government job trying to protect the world from bullying and name-calling.

Their rallying cry: "I didn't like it in high school, and I DON'T LIKE IT NOW!!!"

Are they really to be feared? I picture a minivan full of stick-thin guys piling out, wearing high-waters, big thick-rimmed glasses, plaid shirts,
with sticks coming your way to administer a fully-deserved beat down. Hmmm. Somehow I just am not afraid of these guys.

Even though Springer has said that it's not necessary, if the need were to arise, I would most happily donate to a defense fund as I'm sure many
others would as well. For most of us, ATS is our home. And we will defend it.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Would ATS consider a lawsuit against the ADL if they do not retract or fix the report to reflect the proper information in context, without slanderous
remarks?

We have already discussed it, and the answer is yes.

I am curious: Given the Fair Use doctrine wouldn't they only have to include links to the ATS posts in question? They wouldn't be required to
change or alter anything else in their publication, correct? I wouldn't think you could make a libel case out of a 'quote-mine' but maybe I'm
missing something. 'Effect upon work's value' perhaps?

What have the post authors had to say about this? Do they have any say in this (in the legal sense)?

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Would ATS consider a lawsuit against the ADL if they do not retract or fix the report to reflect the proper information in context, without slanderous
remarks?

We have already discussed it, and the answer is yes.

This website is the most pivotal piece of free information we have. We must all hear the call to arms, be you skeptic, believer, or observer. We will
not back down to tyranny in any form. Let them call us what they want, but they cannot suppress our consciousness. I applaud the efforts and rationale
behind this website. Triumph and liberate the minds of the masses. We will succeed.

Thanks Boss for sticking up for us. Other places on the interwebs would go to the ADL and apologize and make us look like sniveling pansies. You're
standing up and going HEY NOW NOT US BUCKO! *poke in chest* Thank you again.

As far as others mentioning joining up with the other organizations against this "report", my only concern is being painted with the same broad
"crazy" brush that is used with Alex Jones. Or the "radical conservatism" of Fox News, and not to mention how the militias are being
demonized...

But I can hear it already, other members saying "We can't just stick up for ourselves, it's about everyone!" and it is...so I may be misguided in
that thought.

I have wanted to post this in ATS for a while.
This is the best opportunity to expose them.
Thank you ATS!

For decades, the so-called Anti-Defamation League of Bânai Bârith (ADL) has had ties to organized criminals, spies, and notorious fugitives.
And the ADL has been exposed by honest law enforcement officers, investigators, and members of Congress as being an unregistered agent and espionage
operation of a foreign government

Well...I'm putting on my flame suit now...because I know this isn't going to be popular.

I honestly don't see how you can say they did anything wrong. They took a quote from a website and used it in an article/report...it happens all the
time. You don't have to be a member to look at the boards here...they didn't have to agree to any T&C to look at the forums or pull the quotes...I
just honestly don't see the issue.

I constantly speak out against the hate speech on here along with the violent speech on here...and we all know there is plenty of it. If ATS is going
to allow it to be part of the culture here...I don't think you can complain when someone says "Hey...you know that ATS place...lots of hate and
violence being talked about there". This isn't slander...it is the truth. Heck...there was a whole thread dedicated to talking about putting a
$250,000 bounty on the heads of all (men, women, children) illegal immigrants. It got flags, stars, and people voluntering to go do it if it ever
became reality. It was disgusting...I was pretty set on leaving ATS for good because of it.

I don't think "context" has anything to do with it....if anything...the context in these cases probably make it worse.

Let's look at the quotes they used. They all came from the same thread: This One

“When you start talking about terrorists imposing their will on our nation,” explained “Doc Velocity” on the Above Top Secret forums on
March 24, “you must realize that Congressional Democrats are the terrorists who in no way represent the MAJORITY of the American People.”

The quote is exact...they didn't modify it at all...it's not the full post...but the full post doesn't make it sound any better than it is.

Not quite sure who you're talking about here... You mean the MAJORITY of Americans who definitely oppose the bill, or the handful of
politicians in Washington who FORCED this unconstitutional piece of legislation down the throats of the American people against their will?

When you start talking about terrorists imposing their will on our nation, you must realize that Congressional Democrats ARE the terrorists who in no
way represent the MAJORITY of the American People.

America didn't ask for this sort of "change"... And it's highly unlikely that Obama would have even been elected if he had admitted, during his
campaign, that "Change" included forcing every American to purchase health care under penalty of law.

That, my liberal friend, is called UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Boondock-saints quote is from the same thread...here is from teh report:

“I think I remember an old adage from long ago, can’t remember where I heard it or who said it…but it went something like this: If a man
won’t change his ideals with words, then you change his mind with a bullet.” Post by “boondock-saint” on the Above Top Secret Forums, March
24, 2010.

Here is his exact quote from page 1 of that thread:

DC is still not listening

I think I remember an old adage from long ago,
can't remember where I heard it or who said it,
maybe somebody here can help with the source
but it went something like this:

If a man won't change his ideals with words
then you change his mind with a bullet

maybe dialogue from a movie
"go tell the spartans" comes to mind
but can't be sure

Call me crazy...but that sounds like a direct threat of violence towards "DC".

In my opinion...the report was nice to boondock...they could of taken this quote from the very same thread on page 2.

there are also some who post here that would just love
to throw a brick thru a window, or show up in DC and protest
but do not have the physical capabilities to do so. Some even sit
in wheelchairs or use crutches to get around and/or totally
disabled. Those folks rely solely on somebody else to do their
bidding for them. Sitting behind a screen and stating their
minds is the ONLY recourse those folks have. But they would
be in the fringe if they could. How else is their voice gonna
be heard??? Their mind still works even if their bodies do not.
So tread very lightly when even considering calling those type
folks cowards. For some, it was valor in war that put them in those
chairs.

That clearly says to me that he would like to go throw some bricks through a window in DC.

Hammer and Sickle...same story...not going to post because they quotes are exactly the same...they didn't modify it or take it out of context in
anyway.

That ONE thread has many more examples...I would say ATS is lucky on the ones they selected and that they didn't go into other more violent threads
here on ATS.

Here are some more examples from that same thread....I'll withhold the members name so I'm not hit with the T&C and get this whole post deleted.

Page 2, basically justifying the threats of violence:

If the Democrat representatives are so upset about these threats then why did they vote for a bill that they knew 2/3rds of Americans were
against? I mean duh, are they really that stupid?

Page 2, more support for violence.

They should be afraid - VERY afraid! What they did was not only stupid, it was suicide - and not just the political variety either. You cannot
continually violate the will of the electorate and expect pleasant results. For a decade now, this government has pissed all over us and tried to tell
us it only rain. We know better, now we're pissed off about being pissed on!

Page 3, more support

Serves them crooked potitical ass clowns right if they receive Violent Backlash, they are supposed to represent US citizens that elected them
to their jobs and they are totally blocking out what the people are saying.

On page 4 of that thread, dissapointment in the low number of threats and the nostalgia of the past when you could hang politicians:

Only 10???

We have ~315 Million people in America.

65%-75% of them don't want the bill/law.

That's appx. 204-236 Million people.

They get ~10 threats.

Only one action. If you can even consider cutting a line on propane tank outside as nothing more than something a broken hearted punk kid could
achieve at some girls home for dissing him.

OK... Waste some more time and tax dollars protecting them?

Back in the day, congressmen would be hanged by the neck for going against the populace.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Shut Up Cry Baby ... my favorite catch phrase for thin skinned cowardly types.

Page 4, make your own judgement

The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson

Page 9, if this isn't support of violence...I'm not sure what is

Good. I say kill em all and let God sort em out. We use to say "Kill a commie for mommy."

These sell-out fascist whores turning the government into a corporation with the power to enforce a penal code against customers wo refuse to buy
their products or parents who refuse to send their children off to kill and be killed for a profit.

Bring back the guillotines. I'd love to see Pelosi's valium addled smirk sitting in the basket. Burn down the CIA. Nuke the friggin NSA.

Send all the Israelis back to their own country and let them run their own govt. No more dual citizen israelis in govenrment positions higher than dog
catcher. They just caught a coyote in Tribeca section of Manhatten. pound sand with the arabs.

There are many many more...but I think everyone gets the point. That ONE thread was filled with hate, suggestion of violence, and support of
violence. I give a lot of credit to those in that thread speaking AGAINST the violence...you would think they would get as much praise as the three
that were called out in the report...but it doesn't seem like that gets you much credit around here.

And that was a pretty MILD thread compared to others I have seen about the healthcare bill, violent revolution, immigration, ect.

I'm just really confused as to how the claim can be made that these members were "defamed" by the ADL.

Is anyone saying they didn't make these statements?

Is anyone saying that these statements weren't exact quotes copy and pasted?

I'm just really confused as to how these statements are made here on ATS, but if someone reports on it then they are wrong?

How is that logical? Violent statments are made here on ATS...someone comes here and reads the boards and decides to write an article or report that
says..."ATS has some members posting messages that are promoting violence...and here is an example *quote*". And then those here on ATS who see
these violent promoting/accepting messages everyday are SHOCKED by it???

I simply just do not understand.

I heard on ATS Live what I thought they said it has to do with them using ATS content without permission...but isn't that what happens on ATS every
single day??? Link to a blog, link to an article...we have had very long threads where the source is a discussion on another message board. They
sourced these quotes as coming from ATS...they weren't trying to rip it off...I just don't understand what the big complaint is other than it shows
ATS in a bad light...but it was all true.

I find it intersting that we (like all citizens in the US) have already tacitly accepted that we should not say things that might incite others to
violence, or even incite them to rally to a purpose, or simply decry in unison that there is an ill which might need to be addressed soemehow. We are
placed in the position of responsibility for the reaction of others to the words which we speak (or write), no matter what form that reaction takes or
how disfunctional it may be.

I wonder, was the estate of Salinger ever sued or tried for the words he wrote purportedly 'causing' violence? If not, why? Can the claimers of
defamation be themselves defamers? Is their immunity in impunity (or vice versa)?

The same standard cannot be said to apply to the institutions, organizations, or governments, who shine their own hateful light on those presumed
guilty.

Do they, like all the elite self-serving organizations, live by the creed that
as long as they can muster enugh suspension of disbelief to claim they are pursuing their goals, ANY MEANS can be used to do so?

This ugliness seems to 'fail' the litmus test of reason. Proclaimng in a document intended to influence law enforcement and policy makers that ATS
members are a threat somehow falls into the bizzare and thoroughly disconnected.

I would like to say that perhaps institutions like this, and governments like ours, and organizations like 'whatever' shouldn't betray our
sensibilities, because that makes us say the things we say, and do the things we do... in which case... whose fault is it?

I picture an office full of greasy-haired, fashion-obtuse people, furiously tapping away at their keyboards humming "I will survive". All
asthetically-challenged (Ugos) who were particularly hurt at some time in their lives by bullies - maybe in high school or middle school. Now they
have a government job trying to protect the world from bullying and name-calling.

Their rallying cry: "I didn't like it in high school, and I DON'T LIKE IT NOW!!!"

Are they really to be feared? I picture a minivan full of stick-thin guys piling out, wearing high-waters, big thick-rimmed glasses, plaid shirts,
with sticks coming your way to administer a fully-deserved beat down. Hmmm. Somehow I just am not afraid of these guys.

PLUS...how is ATS going to complain about "defamation" when childish post like this is pretty much the norm lately.

We aren't really standing on any moral high ground to pretend like we are the victims.

If people here want to speak out and say what they want...fine...call for violence all you want...but don't run and cry when someone else calls you
out on it.

In 1993, the District of Attorney of San Francisco released 700 pages of documents implicating the Anti-Defamation League, an organization that claims
to be a defender of civil rights, in a vast spying operation directed against American citizens...

In its settlement with the city, the ADL, admitted no wrongdoing, agreed to restrain their operatives from seeking non-public data on ADL's
enemies from government agencies and, putting a happy face on the story, promised to create a $25,000 Hate Crimes Fund and another $25,000 for a
public school course.

Quite eerie is it not that an organization like the Anti-Defamation League, which has a name which suggests it is against defamation, will
go out of its way to not only defame other people, but through it lump each and everyone online in various forums into the same basket of rotten eggs
as those who do not deserve such a title as "right-wing" or "left-wing" extremists.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is an international non-governmental organization based in the United States.

Describing itself as "the nation's premier civil rights/human relations agency", the ADL states that it "fights anti-Semitism and all forms of
bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all" while it "[advocates] for Israel [...] with policymakers, the media and the
public" and "defends the security of Israel and Jews worldwide".

Founded in 1913 by The Independent Order of B'nai B'rith, a Jewish service organization in the United States, its original mission statement was
"to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people.

Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination
against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens."

The ADL has 29 offices in the United States and three offices in other countries, with its headquarters located in New York City.

Since 1987, Abraham Foxman has been the national director in the United States.

The national chairman in the United States is Robert Sugarman.

Anti-Defamation League ADL Part 1

Anti-Defamation League ADL Part 2

Anti-Defamation League ADL Part 3

Anti-Defamation League ADL Part 4

Anti-Defamation League ADL Part 5

Anti-Defamation League ADL Part 6

Anti-Defamation League ADL Part 7

Anti-Defamation League ADL Part 8

Interesting, is it not, that while their aims are allegedly about protecting civil rights, they are simultaneously stamping, tramping, and squashing
as many as they claim they are protecting.

If they do it in such a way as to suggest each and every online forum is the same as all the rest, not only are they misrepresenting each and everyone
who is on an online forum, they are literally doing the dirty work of any Administration official who wants to silence our 1st Amendment Rights of
Freedom of Speech.

A non-governmental organization (NGO) is a legally constituted, non-governmental organization created by natural or legal persons with no
participation or representation of any government.

In the cases in which NGOs are funded totally or partially by governments, the NGO maintains its non-governmental status by excluding government
representatives from membership in the organization.

Unlike the term "intergovernmental organization", "non-governmental organization" is a term in general use but is not a legal definition.

In many jurisdictions, these types of organization are defined as "civil society organizations" or referred to by other names.

The number of internationally operating NGOs is estimated at 40,000.

National numbers are even higher: Russia has 277,000 NGOs;India is estimated to have around 1-2 million NGOs.

Quite literally, by lumping each and everyone of us together, they are broadly painting all online forums as having "right-wing" and
"left-wing" extremists.

While there may be some, by far there are not as many as this inflated report would like to suggest, and through this many within the Administration
can falsely hope to be able to use it as a point of leverage to choke off free speech.

The problem comes with this though that while free speech is being used, they have to prove willful intent towards action, and without willful intent
towards violent and harmful damage, they are seeking an easy way to sell and pre-package the entire Internet as a whole, through online forums, where
ideas are freely shared, and where some may have a negative will to act.

In essence, they handpicked, selectively, those limited quotes, snippets, and hateful sounding aspects of the online forums, as a means to smear the
entire online community.

The problem with this is, is that there are far too many non-partisan forums and they limited their scope in such a way so as to damage any and all
online forums.

Which seems to me was their actual design towards implementation without regard to anyone else other than their own organization, which means in the
end they have proven themselves to be both biased and bigoted and intolerant of others.

To say what they laid claim to was out of context, is wholly inadequate, being that if they did not quote entire posts off of those online forums, and
as well the entirety of any sourced information of each individual, and as well the tenure of those members, then they are grossly misrepresenting
everyone.

By doing it in this way they not only dismiss any responsibility of their own claims, but they as well create the image of not slighting anyone, while
doing exactly that.

So, because people are vocal, seemingly anti-Government, this means they are trouble, not that they actually might know we as a nation are being
misrepresented?

Sure sounds like they need to become members of ATS in order to do what our motto suggests :

Glad to see one of the holier than thou are here to say the ADL, should be able to say anything they want (edit to add-by not providing links so that
others can see the discussion in its entirety), because he believes people saying things he does not agree to, deserve to be denigrated, smeared, and
have their conversations taken out of context.

Why is it the article there OS did not really look for true calls for violence? Maybe because there were none? So, I guess you agree that the
draconian moves to control free speech coming are a good thing.

Well, nice to see your true colors on this.

Oh, by the way, I resembled the commenters description and I do not feel so bad about it.

You have done such a terrific job outlining in great detail, the fabrications perpetrated by this report, and it clearly proves that they are guilty
of slander at best, in my view.
Imagine the irony of this anti-defamation league getting sued for slander and being found guilty for that which they purport to defend people from.
Their motivation is clearly political in nature, and should be very embarrasing to them...

SO, thank you for posting this extremely important item.
There is no doubt that the ADL does not want any opposition to their goal of complete control of thought. They already own most of Congress, have a
choke hold on business, banking, most of the media, Hollywood, and have their "man" in the White House, in the form of Rahm Emanuel.
Liberals, Conservatives and Independents must see this for what it is, a desire to control every aspect of media, by vilifying anyone or anything that
stands it its way.
The ADL must be stopped. Remember Rev. Niemoller's famous statement:

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Glad to see one of the holier than thou are here to say the ADL, should be able to say anything they want

Are you saying they shouldn't? Free speech only apply to you?

because he believes people saying things he does not agree to, deserve to be denigrated, smeared, and have their conversations taken out of
context.

Or...you can read my post and see that I don't care what you say...just don't cry about it when you are called on it and other people look at you in
a negative way.

Why is it the article there OS did not really look for true calls for violence? Maybe because there were none? So, I guess you agree that the
draconian moves to control free speech coming are a good thing.

I'm not trying to control free speech...I didn't see anywhere in their report that said ATS or any of the other forums should be shut down or
censored. Just a report of what is going on...I still don't see why that is wrong. The only people I see trying to control free speech are you and
others who think the ADL does not have the right to talk about ATS...ironic?

Well, nice to see your true colors on this.

Or nice for you to try to paint me a certain color...as usual. I know, I know...I'm a "frelling" idiot and I am now "obfuscating".

No, more like debate, what I was should have said in my comment, they can pick out small parts of other's conversation, without giving a link so that
people cannot find out about the entire conversation.

And yes, I do use the lies and obfuscation angle a lot.

But, if it is true, is it really a bad thing.

As for the rest of your comment, pffft, go on and continue your quest for the implementation of the statist agenda. Your utter lack of seeing that you
are part of the problem in your denial that the Dems/Repubs are both totalitarians and that you yourself believe the government should control
everything.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.